Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 1644 (RAJ)

Pramod Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

2021-09-06

DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA

body2021
JUDGMENT All the four bail applications have been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioners, who are in judicial custody in connection with F.I.R. No. 220/2020, Police Station Srikaranpur, District Sriganganagar, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 323, 324, 447, 147, 148, 149 & 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 27, 30 of the Arms Act. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, and learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant. Perused the material available on record. Learned counsel Mr. Pradeep Shah, while arguing the bail applications of the accused-petitioners, stated that number of co- accused persons, namely, Savitri Devi, Vimla Devi, Abhishek, Karan Godara, Saurabh, Ajyant, Sunita Devi, Jaipal, Rahul, Dharmendra, Surendra Singh, Indrajeet Singh, Pawan Kumar, Manoj Kumar & Ajay Kumar and Ram Kumar have been granted the benefit of bail by the co-ordinate Bench/s of this Court in different bail applications; that 18 persons have been named in the First Information Report (FIR); that apart from the accused persons named in the FIR, 15 to 20 other persons have also been take part in the incident and they have been present on the place of occurrence; that one agreement to sale has been executed between the father of the complainant - Amritpal Singh and Maniram S/o Takhturam, Gopiram, Mahaveer Prasad S/o Maniram in the year 1988 (05.12.1988); that pursuant to the above agreement, the persons belonging to the complainant side are in possession of the lands in question; that a suit for specific performance filed by the complainant side has been decreed in favour of the complainant side; that as per FIR (available at page number 88 of the charge-sheet), as per para number 5, accused Nos.1 to 4 were having guns in their hands, accused Nos. 5 to 7 were having pistols and other accused were having sharped edged weapons in their hands like, gandasi, swords, country made pistols (deshi kattas), hockey sticks and lathies etc.; that as per FIR, the allegation of having caused the gun-shot injuries on the neck and chest of the deceased Jagmeet Singh has been attributed to the accused Anil Kumar and Mahaveer Prasad; that as a result of the injuries, Jagmeet Singh died on the spot; that so far as the accused Praveen Kumar is concerned, as per FIR, the allegation of firm-arm has been attributed to the accused Praveen Kumar on the thigh of injured Gurlabh Singh; that injuries caused to the injured Harmeet Singh have been attributed to the accused Shyam Sunder, Radheyshyam and Kuldeep; that injuries caused to the injured Sandeep Singh have been attributed to the accused Gopi Ram and Pawan Kumar; that no specific allegations have been levelled against the present accused- petitioners Pramod Kumar and Arun Kumar; that the injured persons, namely, Gurlabh Singh Satendra Singh and Sandeep Singh have not levelled any specific allegations against the present accused-petitioners Pramod Kumar and Arun Kumar; that the names of the accused persons Pramod Kumar and Arun Kumar, for the first time came in the statement of Ratanlal and in the statement of Gurlabh Singh, recorded on 07.10.2020 and 12.10.2020 respectively; that the statement of witness (complainant) Amritpal Singh have been recorded on 06.10.2020. Learned counsel Mr. I.R. Choudhary arguing the bail application of the accused Anil Kumar stated that as per prosecution itself, country made pistol (deshi katta) has been recovered from the accused-petitioner Anil Kumar whereas, as per version given in the FIR, the accused-petitioner Anil Kumar came on the spot having a gun in his hands.; that as per statements of eye-witnesses, namely, Harmeet Singh, Satendra Singh and Sandeep Singh, injuries of the deceased (Jagmeet Singh) have been attributed to the accused Pramod Kumar & Arun Kumar, not to his client Anil Kumar; that there are material contradictions in the allegations levelled in the FIR and in the statements of the eye witnesses; that the charge-sheet has already been filed; and that the trial will take time. With the submissions aforesaid, learned counsel for the accused-petitioners pray that the benefit of bail may kindly be granted in favour of the accused-petitioners. With the submissions aforesaid, learned counsel for the accused-petitioners pray that the benefit of bail may kindly be granted in favour of the accused-petitioners. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant have vehemently and fervently opposed the bail applications of the accused- petitioners. Learned counsel for the complainant stated that corroborating the version divulged in the FIR, one country made pistol-12 bore (deshi katta) has been recovered from the accused Anil Kumar, that one 12 bore gun has been recovered from the accused Pramod Kumar, one danda has been recovered from the accused Pramil Kumar; that 10 other cases are pending against accused Pramod Kumar and 4 other cases are pending against the accused Arun Kumar; that the benefit of bail, as aforesaid, have granted to the accused persons, on the basis that they were ladies, namely, Savitri Devi, Smt. Bedi, Chawli Devi, Shakeela, Sunita Devi and Pushpa Devi and on the grounds that some of the accused persons were not named in the FIR and no specific allegation has been levelled against some of the accused. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel Mr. B.S. Sandhu appearing on behalf of the complainant pray that the benefit of bail to the present accused-petitioners may not be granted. While replying the aspect of contradictions in the FIR and statements of the eye-witnesses, learned counsel for the complainant stated that the FIR is not an encyclopedia; that there is no contradictions in the statements of the eye witnesses, namely, Harmeet Singh, Satendra Singh and Sandeep Singh as well as in the statements of witness Ratanlal and the complainant Amritpal Singh; that the story of the prosecution regarding the fact of having weapons has been corroborated with the recovery of the respective weapon from the possession of the respective and named accused persons. Learned counsel for the complainant further stated that despite of two sets of witnesses, as alleged by the learned counsel for the petitioners, it cannot be said that the story of the prosecution is totally false and fabricated. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly looking to the facts that the complaint in regard to the incident took place on 05.10.2020 at about 12:38 hours has been presented before the concerned Police Station, i.e., PS Srikaranpur by the complainant Amritpal Singh. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly looking to the facts that the complaint in regard to the incident took place on 05.10.2020 at about 12:38 hours has been presented before the concerned Police Station, i.e., PS Srikaranpur by the complainant Amritpal Singh. It was categorically mentioned in the complaint (FIR) that different types of weapons were in the hands of each of the accused. It was specifically mentioned in the complaint (FIR) that the injuries found on the neck and chest of the deceased Jagmeet Singh were attributed to the accused Anil Kumar and Mahaveer Prasad. There was no specific allegation levelled against the accused Pramod Kumar and Arun Kumar in the complaint (FIR). The injury caused to the injured Gurlabh Singh on his thigh was attributed to the accused Pramil Kumar. As per the statements of the eye-witnesses, there was no specific allegation levelled against other co-accused Arun Kumar and Pramod Kumar and as per complaint (FIR) itself, injuries caused to the deceased Jagmeet Singh were attributed to the accused Anil Kumar. Furthermore, simply because deshi katta was recovered from the accused contrary to the version of the complaint (FIR) that Gun was found in the hands of the accused Anil Kumar, it cannot be said that the injuries of the deceased (Jagmeet Singh) and other injured (Gurlabh Singh) are not attributed to the accused Anil Kumar and Mahaveer Prasad. So far as other accused persons, as mentioned in the statements of the witnesses as well as in the complaint (FIR) are concerned, in the opinion of this Court, at this stage, I am inclined to enlarge the accused-petitioners, namely, Pramod Kumar, Pramil Kumar and Arun Kumar as trial will take sufficiently long time, therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the bail applications filed by the petitioners deserve to be accepted. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after scanning through the entire record, this Court is of the opinion that the accused-petitioner Anil Kumar (Bail Application No. 8870/2021) is not entitled to be granted the benefit of bail for the reason that in the statements of the relevant witnesses, his name has been mentioned. Accordingly, the bail application (No.8870/2021) preferred under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the accused-petitioner Anil Kumar is dismissed at this stage. Accordingly, the bail application (No.8870/2021) preferred under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the accused-petitioner Anil Kumar is dismissed at this stage. However, in the circumstances of the case, the accused shall be at liberty to move fresh bail application after recording of the statements of other material witnesses. Consequently, the bail applications are allowed. It is ordered that the petitioners, Pramod Kumar S/o Bhagirath (Bail Application No. 7763/2021), Pramil Kumar S/o Mahveer Prasad (Bail Application No. 3747/2021) and Arun Kumar S/o Subhash Chand (Bail Application No. 8871/2021), all the three arrested in connection with F.I.R. No. 220/2020, Police Station Srikaranpur, District Sriganganagar, shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any other case, provided each of them furnishes a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sound and solvent surety bonds of Rs.50,000/- each (one shall be of blood relative/close relative) to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court with the stipulation to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.